BRECKENRIDGE   AND   LANE   CAMPAIGN    DOCUMENTS,   No.   3. 


DEFENCE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  DEMOCRACY  AGAINST  THE  ATTACK  OF 
JUDGE  DOUGLAS-CONSTITUTIONAL  EIGHTS  OF  THE  STATES. 


SPEECH   OF 


HOE  J.  P.  BENJAMIN,'*" 


( 

OF   LOUISIANA. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OP   THE    UNITED  STATES,  MAY  22,  1860. 


WASHINGTON  CITY— Issued  by  the  National  Democratic  Executive  Committee,  1860. 


r 


VJ   C 


•"•      ; 

•          «b      . 


BRECKENRIDGE    AND    LANE    CAMPAIGN    DOCUMENTS,    No.  3. 

DEFENCE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  DEMOCRACY  AGAINST  THE  ATTACK  01' 
JUDGE  DOUGLAS— CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS  OF  THE  STATES. 

SPEECH  OF  HON.  J.  P.  BENJAMIN, 

/ 


OF    LOUISIANA. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE   SENATE  OF   THE   UNITED   STATES,  MAY  22,  1860. 


Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  When  we  met  here  in 
December  the  public  mind  was  deeply 
stirred.  It  was  stirred  by  an  occurrence 
which  had  taken  place  for  the  first  time  in 
our  history — the  invasion  of  one  of  the 
States  of  the  Confederacy  by  a  band  of  fa- 
natics for  the  avowed  purpose  of  interfering 
with  its  domestic  institutions  and  setting  its 
slaves  at  liberty.  The  whole  country  was 
deeply  stirred,  but  especially  stirred  was  the 
South,  and  this  universal  excitement  found 
immediate  vent  in  Congress.  Scarcely  had 
we  met,  when  numerous  resolutions  were 
placed  upon  our  table  by  different  Senators, 
which,  on  the  2d  of  February,  were  ordered, 
by  a  resolution  of  the  Senate,  to  be  printed 
together.  The  first  was  a  resolution  sub- 
mitted by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Ohio, 
(Mr.  PUGH,)  who,  on  the  loth  of  Decem- 
ber, proposed  that  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories 

"  Be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency 
of  repealing  so  much  of  the  acts  approved  Septem- 
ber 9,  1850,  for  the  organization  of  territorial  go- 
vernments in  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  as  require 
-that  «11  the  laws  passed  by  the  Legislatures  of 
those  Territories  shall  be  submitted  to  Congress 
for  approval  or  rejection." 

That  was  offered  on  the  loth  of  Decem- 
ber, before  even  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives had  been  organized.  To  that  an 
amendment  was  offered  by  the  Senator  from 
Iowa,  (Mr.  HARLAN.)  which  I  shall  not  read. 
The  next  was  a  resolution  submitted  on  the 
16th  of  January  by  the  Senator  from  Illi- 
nois. (Mr.  DOUGLAS,)  in  relation  to  instruc- 
tions to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  to 
report  a  bill  for  the  protection  of  the  States 
and  Territories  of  the  Union  against  inva- 
sion. Next,  on  the  18th  of  January,  were 
resolutions  submitted  by  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi,  (Mr.  BROWN.)  Next,  were 
amendments  to  those  resolutions  submitted 
by  the  Senator  from  Minnesota,  (Mr.  WIL- 
KINSON.) Next,  were  the  resolutions  sub- 


mitted by  the  other  Senator  from  Missis- 
sippi, (Mr.  DAVIS,)  on  the  2d  of  February; 
and,  finally,  to  those  resolutions  amend- 
ments were  offered  by  the  Senator  from 
Delaware.  (Mr.  SAULSBURY.) 

Here,  then,  was  a  series  of  propositions 
before  the  Senate,  seven  in  number,  all  di- 
rected to  the  question  of  slavery  in  the 
States  and  Territories,  and  all  ordered  by 
the  Senate  "  to  be  printed  together  for  dis- 
cussion." Under  these  circumstances,  it 
became  obvious  that,  unless  some  concert 
of  action  was  had  by  gentlemen  who  pro- 
fessed the  same  political  principles  in  rela- 
tion to  this  vital  issue  now  before  the  coun- 
try, the  discussion  must  be  confused  and 
pointless.  If  every  member  offered  his  own 
resolutions  in  his  own  language,  and  if  there 
was  no  concert  among  those  who  enter- 
tained the  same  principles,  the  time  of  the 
Senate  would  be  needlessly  exhausted,  and 
we  should  come  to  no  practical  result.  Un- 
der these  circumstances,  a  suggestion  was 
made — from  what  quarter  I  know  not,  and 
certainly  it  is  not  of  the  slightest  conse- 
quence— that  the  members  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  who  were  supposed  generally 
to  entertain  sentiments  in  accordance  with 
each  other,  should  meet  and  should  agree 
upon  the  phraseology  of  the  resolutions  that 
they  were  disposed  to  support,  and,  after 
harmonizing  upon  that  phraseology,  should 
agree  to  stand  by  it,  with  a  view  to  get  a 
vote  of  the  Senate  upon  distinct  proposi- 
tions, as  the  principles  of  the  Democratic 
party,  so  far  as  that  party  was  represented 
by  the  Senators  in  Congress. 

Now  Mr.  President,  these  resolutions  be- 
ing before  us,  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Illinois,  (Mr.  DOUCLAS,)  the  other  day—I 
am  sorry  that  I  do  not  see  him  in  his  seat ; 
I  shonld  have  waited  for  him,  if  I  had  the 
slightest  hope  of  seeing  him  in  the  Senate ; 
he  was  not  here  yesterday ;  he  is  not  here 
to-d»y ;  and  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  of 


WASHINGTON  CITY— Issued  by  the  National  Democratic  Executive  Committee,  I860. 

•I 


<v  - 

us  to  say  when  he  will  be  here  again— the 
honorable  Senator  from  Illinois,  in  one  of 
the  most  extraordinary  speeches  ever  deliv- 
ered in  a  deliberative  body,  and  which  oc- 
cupies over  twenty  consecutive  columns  of 
the  Globe,  and  which  was  followed,  a  day 
or  two  after,  in  reply  to  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi,  (Mr.  DAVIS,)  by  several^  other 
columns,  has  undertaken  >'hat  certainly  is 
without  precedent  in  'the  history  of  the 
C'uuntry— has  undertaken  to  defend  his  indi- 
vidual claims  to  the  Presidency  of  the 
United  States;  and,  in  so  doing,  has  divided 
out  his  elaborately-prepared  speech  into  dif- 
ferent portions,  some  of  which  alone  shall  I 
attempt  to  answer-;  and  I  attempt  that  an- 
swer because  that  Senator  thought  proper 
to  arraign  my  State  and  to  arraign  me,  with 
other  Democratic  States  and  other  Demo- 
cratic Senators,  for  daring  to  discuss  the 
propositions  and  resolutions  now  before  the 
Senate. 

%More  than  half  of  that  Senator's  speech 
was  devoted  to  the  perfectly  idle  and  un- 
necessary task  of  proving  that  those  princi- 
ples winch  he  now  asserts  to  be  the  true 
constitutional  principles  under  which  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States  are  gov- 
erned, were  advocated  by  him  as  such  years 
and  years  ago ;  and  therefore  he  undertook 
tb  prove  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  country — 
to  which  he  appealed  so  often — that  there 
has  been  no  inconsistency  in  his  course,  anc 
that  if  he  and  his  brother  Democratic  Sen- 
ators are  at  issue  upon  any  point,  it  is  we, 
and  not  he,  who  have  proved  inconsistent 
I  shall  return  to  that,  sir,  in  a  moment. 

The  next  proposition  of  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Illinois  was,  that  he  was  the 
embodiment  of  the  Democratic  party,  and 
that  all  who  dissented  from  this  modest 
proposition  were  rebels.  He  next  arraigned 
all  his  Democratic  brethren  in  this  Cham- 
ber for  daring  to  offer  resolutions  to  the 
Senate  declaratory  of  constitutional  princi- 
ples ;  and  he  called  the  resolutions  now  be- 
fore us  a  caucus  platform,  which  he  said  the 
Charleston  convention,  which  represents 
him,  treated  with  the  scorn  and  contempt 
that  they  merited. 

Next  he  said  that  seventeen  Democratic 
States  of  this  Union,  and  all  his  brother 
Democratic  Senators  who  did  not  agree 
with  him,  were  disunionists,  and  he  arraigned 
them  as  such.  He  said  that  they  were 
traveling  on  the  high  road  to  the  disunion 
of  these  States.  Then,  in  the  plenitude  of 
his  indulgence,  he  told  us  that  we  were  sin- 
ning through  ignorance  and  did  not  know 
what  road  we  were  traveling,  and,  with 
princely  magnanimity,  tendered  his  clemen- 
cy and  hie  pardon  to  those  who,  after  being 
enlightened  by  his  counsel,  should  tender 
repentance.  And  after  having  done  all  that 
—  having  attacked  every  Democratic  State 
inaaoO  *it 


n  the  Union,  and  almost  every  Democratic 
Senator  in  this  body,  he  closed  with  a  state- 
ment that  all  that  he  had  said  was  in  self- 
defence;  that  he  attacked  nobody,  and  that 


the  world  should  know,  if1 
again,    it  would   be,   as   he 


he  ever  spoke 
had   just  then 


tpoken,  to  defend  himself  from  attack. 

Now.  Mr.  I*  resident,  -lest  1  should  be  sup- 
ppsed  to  have  at  all  exaggerated,  in  this 
statement,  what  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Illinois  thought,  proper  to  say  in  relation  to 
resolutions  involving  purely  constitutional 
and  political  principles,  I  will  read  here  and 
there  passages  from  his  speech,  in  support 
of  the  assertion  that  I  made.  In  relation 
to  the  action  of  his  brother  Senators,  kc 
says  this  : 

"  Sir,  let  the  Democratic  Senators  attend  to  their 
official  duties,  and  leave  the  national  conventions 
to  make  their  platforms,  and  the  party  will  be  uni- 
ted. Where  does  this  trouble  come  from  ?  From 
uiir  own  caucus  chambers  —  a  caucus  of  Senators 
dictating  to  the  people  what  sort  of  platform  they 
shall  have.  You  have  been  told  that  no  less  than 
twelve  Southern  Senators  warned  you  in  the  cau- 
cus against  the  consequences  of  trying  to  force 
senatorial  caucus  platforms  on  the  party.  Sir,  I 
do  not  know  when  the  people  ever  put  it  in  a 
Senator's  commission  that  he  is  to  get  up  plat- 
forms for  the  national  conventions,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  delegates  who  go  there  have  not 
sense  enough  to  do  it  themselves. 

"Although  the  action  of  the  caucus  was  heralded 
to  the  world  to  be,  as  was  generally  understood, 
or  the  purpose  of  operating  on  the  Charleston  con- 
vention, it  did  not  have  its  effect.  The  resolutions 
lay  still.  When  it  was  proposed  to  postpone  them 
here  in  the  Senate,  before  the  Charleston  conven- 
tion, I  voted  against  the  postponement.  I  wanted 
to  give  a  ch'ance  for  a  vote  on  them  before  the  party 
icted.  I  did  not  believe  the  pnrty  then  would 
igree  to  the  dictation.  I  do  not  think  they  would 
obey  the  order.  Sir,  the  Charleston  convention 
scorned  it,  and  ratified  the  old  platform." 

I  appeal  to  the  Senate  whether  or  not 
this  is  self-defence.  I  appeal  to  the  Senate 
whether  or  not  this  be,  as  I  have  stated  it 
to  be,  an  arraignment  by  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Illinois  against  the  action  of 
almost  the  entire  body  of  his  brother  Demo- 
crats —  a  perversion  ofthe  truth  and  the  facts, 
a  misrepresentation  of  what  occurred;  for 
this,  namely,  that  the  meeting  of  the  Sena- 
tors who  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions, 
which  they  believed  to  be  sound  constitu- 
tional doctrine,  was  based  upon  the  fact 
that  a  large  series  of  independent  resolu- 
tions had  been  put  before  the  Senate,  and 
that  some  concerted  action  of  the  party  in 
relation  to  those  resolutions  was  just  as 
necessary  as  the  concerted  action  of  the 
parties  who  supported  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  in  1854,  when  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Illinois  called  them  into  council  every  morn- 
ing almost  of  his  life  during  that  controver 
sy.  When  that  bill  was  pending  ;  when 
amendments  were  offered  around  the  Cham- 
ber, for  the  purpose  of  concentrating  action 


3 


,md  preventing1  that  division  of  the  party 
•vhich  might  be  taken  advantage  of  by  the 
opponents  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  the 
lonorable  Senator  from  Illinois  called  to- 
gether those  who  supported  the  bill  every 
norning,  and  asked  .their  opinions,  and 
changed  and  modified  the  phraseology  to 
suit  all  and  to  obtain  the  assent  of  all. 
That  was  the  purpose  of  the  Democratic 
Senators  who  met  to  consider  resolutions 
"hat  Senators  all  around  the  Chamber  had 
offered.  That  they  did  ;  and  that  is  what 
las  been  perverted  into  an  attempt  to  dic- 
tate a  party  platform  to  a  convention. 

Nay,  more,  sir,  in  order  that  there  might 
be  no  possibility  of  misrepresenting  those 
resolutions  as  being  the  dictation  of  a  party 
platform,  the  Senate  postponed  the  consid- 
eration of  the  resolutions  until  after  the 
party  had  met,  and  made  what  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  says  is  its  platform  ;  and  that 
very  postponement  is  brought  up  here  as  an 
arraignment  of  the  intentions  of  the  Sena- 
tors, who  are  now  speaking  on  these  resolu- 
tions, after  the  platform  has  been  made,  as 
he  says.  It  was  with  the  view,  as  he  now 
says,  to  affect  his  presidential  chances.  I 
leave  that  accusation  for  what  it  is  worth. 
I  have  stated  the  accusation,  and  stated  the 
defence. 

Next,  sir,  I  say  that  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor from  Illinois,  not  satisfied  with  discuss- 
ing the  constitutional  questions  now  before 
the  Senate  upon  their  merits,  has  thought 
proper  to  arraign  seventeen  Democratic 
States  of  this  Union  as  disunionists.  He 
accompanies  it  with'  the  suggestion  that  he 
forgives  us,  because  we  know  not  what  we 
do.  I  say,  sir,  the  fact  that  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  arraigns  seventeen  Democratic 
States,  and  nearly  all  his  Democratic  breth- 
ren here,  as  disunionists,  I  will  also  show, 
by  an  extract  from  his  speech  the  other  day, 
of  a  few  lines.  He  tells  us  that  these  reso- 
lutions are  a  Yancey  platform  ;  and  that 
the  resolutions  reported  to  the  Charleston 
convention  by  a  majority  of  the  States  of 
this  Union,  by  the  almost  unanimous  assent 
of  the  Democratic  States  of  the  Union,  was 
a  Yancey  platform  also;  and  that  Yancey 
made  the  platform  for  the  party,  made  the 
caucus  platform,  and  made  the  platform  for 
the  majority  of  the  Democratic  States  of 
the  Union  ;  and  that  all,  together  with 
Yancey,  are  disunionists.  Here  is  his  lan- 
guage, sir, — 

"The  Yancey  platform  at  Charleston,  known  as 
the  majority  report  from  the  committee  on  resolu- 
tions, in  substance  and  spirit  and  legal  effect,  was 
the  same  as  the  Senate  caucus  resolutions;  the 
same  as  the  resolutions  now  under  discussion,  ami 
upoxi  which  the  Senate  is  called  upon  to  vote. 

"  l\do  not  suppose  that  any  gentleman  advoca- 
ting this  platform  in  the  Senate,  means  or  desires 
disunion.  I  acquit  each  and  every  man  of  such  a 
purpose;  but,  I  believe,  in  my  conscience,  that 


such  a  platform  of  principles,  insisted  upon,  will 
lead  directly  and  inevitably  to  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union.  This  platform  demands  congressional 
intervention  for  slavery  in  the  Territories  in  cer- 
tain events.  What  are  these  events?  In  the 
event  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  do  not  want 
slavery,  and  will  not  provide,  by  law,  for  its  intro- 
duction and  protection,  and  that  fact  shall  be 
ascertained  judicially,  then  Congress  is  to  pledge 
itself  to  pass  laws  to  force  the  Territories  to 
have  it." 

So,  sir,  these  resolutions  are  a  "  Yaneey 
platform,"  a  caucus  platform,  a  disunion 
platform  ;  and  the  purpose  is,  of  all  who 
support  them  and  vote  for  them,  after  the 
people  of  a  Territory  shall  have  decided  that 
"  they  do  not  want  slavery,  and  that  fact 
has  been  ascertained  judicially,  to  get  Con- 
gress to  force  slavery  on  them."  That  is 
the  deliberate  statement,  prepared  and  put 
forth  to  the  world,  revised  and  corrected  by 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois.  Mr. 
President,  my  State  voted  for  that  platform. 
I  shall  vote  for  this  caucus-Yancey  plat- 
form, if  that  helps  the  Senator  from  Illi- 
nois. If  it  helps  him  to  give  nicknames, 
and  he  thinks  that  an  appeal  to  the  people 
of  the  country  will  be  helped  by  accusing 
Democratic  States  and  Democratic  Sena- 
tors of  being  led  by  a  gentlemen  whom  he 
supposes  to  be  unpopular,  and  calls  them 
supporters  of  a  Yancey  platform  and  of  a 
disunion  platform,  let  him  have  the  benefit 
of  such  appeal.  I,  for  my  part,  accept  the 
responsibility,  and  stand  by  the  resolutions 
and  the  platform.  But,  sir,  at  the  same 
time  I  deny  that  there  is  the  slightest  ap- 
proach to  truth  or  correctness  in  the  linea- 
ments ascribed  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Illinois  to  the  platform  adopted  by 
the  majority  of  the  Democratic  States  at 
Charleston,  or.  to  the  principles  which  are 
here  advocated  by  the  almost  unanimous 
vote  of  the  Democratic  Senators.  I  deny 
that  there  is  the  least  approach  to  truth  in 
his  picture.  No  man  here  has  called  upon 
Congress  to  force  slavery  upon  an  unwilling 
people.  No  man  here  has  called  upon.  Con- 
gress to  intervene  and  force  slavery  into  the 
Territories.  No  man  has  asked  Congress  to 
do  what  the  gentleman  speaks  of  in  another 
part  of  his  speech  as  making  a  slave  code 
for  the  Territories — that  being  another  of 
the  slang  phrases  which  the  honorable  Sen- 
ator from  Illinois  adopts  from  Republican 
gentlemen  at  the  North,  and  parades  to  the 
American  people  as  proof  that  he  is  sound 
on  this  subject  of  the  Democracy,  and  that 
we  are  unsound.  No  man  has  asked  for 
such  a  thing,  or  anything  approaching  to 
such  a  thing,  as  I  shall  proceed  hereafter  to 
show. 

Now.  Mr.  President,  having  shown  to  you 
the  charges  made  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Illinois  against  the  Democratic  States 
<r,f  this  Confederacy,  and  the  Democratic 


Senators  in  this  Hall — which  charges  I 
repel  and  mean  to  disprove  to-day — I  desire 
to  read  a  few  words  which  I  find  at  the  close 
of  his  speech,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
how  nearly  and  how  closely  his  conclusions 
and  his  speech  accord  with  what  I  have  just 
stated : 

"  I  am  sorry  to  hare  been  forced  to  occupy  so 
much  of  the  time  of  the  Senate;  but  the  Senate 
will  bear  me  witness  that  I  have  not  spoken,  in 
the  last  two  years,  on  any  one  of  these  topics, 
except  when  assailed,  and  then  in  self-defence. 
You  will  never  find  the  discussion  renewed  here 
again  by  me,  except  in  self-defence.  I  have  stu- 
diously avoided  attacking  any  man,  because  I  did 
not  mean  to  give  a  pretext  for  renewing  the 
H9?ault  on  me;  and  the  world  shall  understand 
that  if  my  name  is  brought  into  this  debate  again, 
it, will  be  done  aggressively,  as  an  assault  on  me; 
and  if  I  occupy  any  more  time,  it  will  be  only  in 
self-defence." 
. 

Mr.  President,  this  mode  of  discussing 
public  subjects  is  a  very  convenient  one 
arraigning  every  gentleman  sitting  here  on 
this  side  of  the  Chamber,  attacking  them  in 
the  most  offensive  of  all  manners  ;  spreading 
that  attack,  revised  and  corrected,  in  the 
official  columns  of  the  Globe,  issuing  it  out 
to  the  world ;  and  then  saying  that  if  any 
man  should  raise  his  voice  here  to  repel  it, 
it  will  be  an  assault  on  him,  and  the  world 
s^all  know  that  he  does  not  speak  except 
in  self-defence.  He  makes  it  impossible  to 
answer  his  charges  without  attacking  his 
course,  and  then  says  he  is  driven  by  self- 
defence  to  fresh  assaults  !  I  am  afraid,  Mr. 
President,  that  I  shall  be  obnoxious  to  the 
charge  of  asailing  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Illinois,  if  it  be  indeed  an  assault  to 
repel  a  most  wanton  and  unprovoked  attack. 

More  than  one  half-the  the  speech  of  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Illinois  was  devoted, 
as  I  said  before,  to  the  purpose  of  proving 
his  own  consistency,  from  some  period  which 
I  do  not  care  to  go  back  to,  down  to  1854 
and  1856,  and  the  present  time.  He  says 
he  is  now  consistent  with  the  principles  that 
he  then  professed.  I  do  not  deny  it.  I  do 
not  know  that  any  body  denies  it.  On  the 
contrary,  that  is  the  precise  charge  brought 
against  him,  as  I  shall  proceed  to  show. 
The  precise  charge  is  that,  having  agreed 
with  us  that  he  would  abandon  those  prin- 
ciples, if  they  were  proved  to  be  false,  he 
now  flies  from  his  bargain  ;  he'uow  denies 
what  he  agreed  to  ;  he  now  refuses  to  be 
bound  by  that  to  which  he  had  previous- 
ly given  his  consent ;  and  defends  himself, 
because,  as  he  Bays,  he  is  now  in  accordance 
with  what  he  was  then.  I  do  do  not  pro- 
pose to  go  back  beyond  the  year  1857  ;  be- 
cause every  one  here  knows  that,  up  to  the 
year  1857,  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illi- 
nois had  the  cordial  friendship  and  support 
of  all  the  members  of  the  Democratic  party. 
Every  one  on  this  floor  knows  that,  up  to 


the  year  1857,  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Illinois  was  looked  upon  with  pride  and  con- 
fidence as  one  of  the  acknowledged  leaders 
of  the  Democratic  party. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  is  it  not  a  subject 
deserving  of  some  inquiry  ;  will  it  not  natur- 
ally suggest  itself  to  the  American  people 
to  inquire  how  happens  it  that  a  gentleman, 
who  for  a  long  series  of  years  possessed  the 
confidence  and  admiration  of  his  party,  upon 
whom  they  looked  with  pride,  whom  they 
acknowledged  as  a  leader,  and  for  whom  they 
reserved  their  choicest  honors,  should  sud- 
denly find  himself  separated  from  every  De- 
mocratic State  in  the  Union,  and  from  the 
whole  body  of  his  Democratic  associates  here 
and  in  the  other  House?  What  magic  has 
effected  this  change  in  the  universal  senti- 
ment towards  him  ?  What  occult  power 
has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Senator 
from  Illinois,  that  to-day  he  complains  and 
whines  that  he  is  the  subject  of  a  common 
assault  by  gentlemen  who  were  formerly  with 
him,  and  who,  he  says,  are  pursuing  him  with 
ruthless  malignity  ?  How  happens  it  that 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  forgot  to  touch 
that  part  of  the  recent  history  of  the  coun- 
try in  his  speech  ?  I  propose  to  commend 
myself  to  the  consideration  of  that  part  of 
the  history. 

When,  in  1854,  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
was  before  us — 1  must  be  guilty  of  some  re- 
petition ;  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  it  when  a 
question  has  been  worn  so  threadbare — there 
were  three  distinct  sentiments  professed  upon 
this  floor  in  relation  to  the  government  of 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  The 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber 
professed  the  principle  that  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  had  the  power  to  go- 
vern the  Territories,  and  that  there  was  to 
be  found  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  no  prohibition  against  exercising  that 
power  so  as  to  exclude  slavery  ;  and  they 
therefore  went  for  excluding  slavery  from 
the  Territories  by  the  power  of  Congress, 
which  had  an  admitted  power  to  govern 
them.  The  southern  members  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  with  some  of  the  members  from 
the  North,  agreed  with  the  Republican  party 
that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had 
the  undoubted  power  to  govern  the  Territo- 
ries ;  but  they  held  that  there  was  a  limita- 
tion to  that  power  to  be  found  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  which  limita- 
tion prevented  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  from  exercising  the  power  to  exclude 
slavery ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  imposed  it  as 
a  duty  upon  Congress  to  protect  property  in 
slaves,  just  as  all  other  property.  The  third 
school  had  at  its  head,  at  that  time,  the 
venerable  Senator  from  Michigan,  now  in 
the  Department  of  State.  With  him  were 
joined  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois, 
and  the  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan 


then,  Mr.  Stuart,  I  think.  They  held  that 
the  sole  power  of  Congress  was  to  institute 
an  organic  act,  as  they  termed  it ;  that  the 
sole  power  was  to  give,  as  it  were,  a  consti- 
tution to  the  Territories  by  which  the  people 
might  be  brought  together  in  organized  form, 
and  that  when  the  people  were  thus  brought 
together  in  an  organized  form,  in  a  legisla- 
tive capacity,  they  possessed  inherent  sover- 
eignty, just  as  a  State,  and  had  a  right  to 
do  in  relation  to  slavery  just  as  they  pleased. 

Those  were  the  the  three  principles  advo- 
cated upon  this  floor.  I  think  I  state  them 
correctly.  I  try  to  .do  so,  at  all  events. 
When  we  were  discussing  the  principle  to 
be  introduced  into  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  we  all  agreed  that  we  were  opposed  to 
the  principles  advocated  by  the  Republican 
party.  We  all  agreed  that  whether  Con- 
gress had  the  power  or  not  to  exclude  sla- 
very from  the  Territories,  it  was  injurious  to 
exercise  that  power ;  that  Congress  ought 
not  to  intervene.  That  is  what  we  said,  and 
all  the  Senators  from  the  South  concurred 
with  that.  When  we  came  further  to  deter- 
mine what  was  to  be  done,  after  having  de- 
cided that  Congress  should  not  intervene, 
we  split.  The  Democrats  of  the  South,  and 
some  of  the  Democrats  of  the  North  agree- 
ing with  them,  in  our  caucus  meetings,  in 
discussing  the  principles  of  the  bill,  in  fram- 
ing its  provisions,  in  preparing  it  for  dis- 
cussion in  the  Senate,  said  :  "The  Territo- 
rial Legislature  has  no  power  to  exclude  the 
people  of  the  South,  or  their  property,  from 
the  Territories,  because  the  Territories  are 
governed  by  Congress  as  a  trustee  for  all 
the  States  ;  the  Territorial  Legislature  can 
get  no  power  but  the  power  that  Congress 
gives  it,  and  Congress  itself  has  no  power 
to  exclude  our  property  from  the  Territo- 
ries, which  belong  to  us  as  well  as  to  the 
free  States."  The  Senator  from  Illinois  said 
differently.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  said 
that  he  believed  the  Territorial  Legislature 
had  the  right,  whilst  the  people  of  the  Ter- 
ritory were  in  a  territorial  organization,  to 
exclude  slavery  if  they  pleased.  We  split 
on  that ;  we  could  not  agree.  I  admit  all 
that  the  Senator  said  here  the  other  day  as 
to  it.  He  said  so  then  ;  he  says  now.  I 
complain  exactly  of  that  consistency ;  be- 
cause when  we  could  not  agree,  he  said  that 
he  would  agree  with  us  to  submit  it  to  the 
courts,  and  if  the  courts  decided  in  our 
favor,  he  would  give  up  and  join  us ;  and 
we  agreed  if  the  courts  decided  against  us, 
that  we  would  give  up  and  join  him.  It  is 
that  very  consistency  that  is  complained  of; 
and  I  shall  proceed  to  prove  it. 

It  is  bad  faith  when  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor no  longer  worships  at  the  shrine  of  con- 
stitutional principle.  Professing  to  agree 
to  leave  the  matter  to  the  decision  of  the 
courts,  professing  to  respect  the  courts  in, 


their  decisions,  he  has  gone  astray  after  false 
gods,  and  is  now  worshiping  the  idols  of 
evasion  and  circumvention.  Sir,  I  do  not 
state  of  my  own  authority  the  position  of  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Illinois,  I  read  again 
from  his  speech  the  other  day.  He  is  speak- 
ing of  the  power  of  a  Territorial  Legislature 
to  exclude  slavery.  The  Senator  from  Illi- 
nois is  right  in  saying  that  his  opinion  was 
clearly  explained  at  the  time.  He  asserted 
the  power  in  the  Territorial  Legislature  : 

"I  believe  the  power  existed;  others  believed 
otherwise;  wo  agreed  to  differ;  we  agreed  to  refer 
it  to  the  judiciary;  we  agreed  to  abide  by  their 
decision ;  and  I,  true  to  tuy  agreement,  referred 
my  colleague  to  the  courts  to  find  out  whether  the 
power  existed  or  not.  The  fact  that  I  referred 
him  to  the  courts  has  been  cited  as  evidence  that 
I  did  not  think,  individually,  that  the  power  ex- 
isted in  a  Territorial  Legislature.  After  the  evi- 
dence that  I  produced  yesterday,  and  the  debate 
just  read  upon  the  Truuibull  amendment,  no  man 
who  was  an  actor  in  those  scenes  has  an  excuse  to 
be  at  a  loss  as  to  what'  my  opinion  was." 

The  Senator  from  Illinois  is  right;  his 
opinion  was  clearly  expressed  at  the  time. 
He  asserted  the  power  in  the  Territorial 
Legislature : 

"  But  it  was  not  my  opinion  that  was  to  govern ; 
it  wns  the  opinion  of  the  court  on  the  question 
arising  under  a  territorial  law  after  the  Territory 
should  have  passed  a  law  upon  the  subject.  Bear 
in  mind,  that  the  report  introducing  the  bill  was, 
that  these  questions  touching  the  right  of  property 
in  slaves,  were  referred  to  the  local  courts,  to  the 
territorial  courts,  with  a  right  of  appeal  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  When  that 
case  shall  arise,  and  the  court  shall  pronounce  its 
judgment,  it  will  be  binding  on  me,  on  you,  sir, 
and  on  every  good  citizen.  It  must  be  carried  out 
in  good  faith ;  and  all  the  power  of  this  Govern- 
ment— the  Army,  the  Navy,  and  the  Militia — all 
that  we  have — must  be  exerted  to  carry  the  deci- 
sion into  effect  in  good  faith,  if  there  be  resistance. 
Do  not  bring  the  qnestion  back  here  for  Congress 
to  review  the  decision  of  the  court,  nor  for  Con- 
gress to  explain  the  decision  of  the  court.  The 
court  is  competent  to  construe  its  own  decisions, 
and  issue  its  own  decrees  to  carry  its  decisions 
into  effect. 

"  We  are  told  that  the  court  has  already  decided 
the  question.  If  so,  there  is  an  end  of  the  contro- 
versy. You  agreed  to  abide  by  it ;  I  did.  If  it 
has  decided  it,  let  the  ..decision  go  into  effect; 
there  is  an  end  of  it;  what  are  we  quarreling 
about?  Will  resolutions  of  the  Senate  give  any 
additional  authority  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States?  Does  it  need  an 
endorsement  by  the  Charleston  convention  to  give 
it  validity  ?  If  the  decision  is  made,  it  is  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  we  are  all  bound  by  it.  If  the 
decision  is  not  made,  then  what  right  have  you  to 
pass  resolutions  here,  prejudging  the  question,, 
with  a  view  to  influencing  the  views  of  the  court? 
If  there  is  a  dispute  as  to  the  true  interpretation 
and  meaning  of  the  decision  of  the  court,  who  can 
settle  the  true  construction,  except  the  court  itself, 
when  it  arises  in  another  case  ?  Can  you  deter- 
mine by  resolutions  here  what  the  decision  of  the 
court  is,  or  what  it  ought  to  be,  or  what  it  will  be  ? 
It  belongs  to  that  taibunal.  The  Constitution  has, 


wisely  separated  the  political  from  tho  judicial 
department  of  the  government.  The  Constitution 
has  wisely  made  tho  courts  a  co-ordinate  branch  of 
the  Government;  as  independent  of  us  as  we  are 
of  them.  Sir,  you  have  no  right  to  instruct  that 
court  how  they  shall  decide  this  question  in  dis- 
pute. You  have  no  right  to  define  their  decision 
for  them.  When  that  decision  is  made,  they  will 
issue  the  proper  process  for  carrying  it  into  effect; 
and  the  Executive  is  clothed  with  the  Army,  tho 
Nary,  and  the  Militia,  the  whole  power  of  the 
Government,  to  execute  that  decree.  All  I  ask, 
therefore,  of  you,  is  non-intervention — hands  off. 
In  the  language  of  the  Georgia  resolutions,  let 
the  subject  be  banished  forever  from  th»  Halls  of 
Congress  or  the  political  arena,  and  referred  to 
the  Territories,  with  a  right  of  appeal  to  the 
court? ;  and  there  is  an  end  to  the  controversy." 

Mr.  President,  I  have  read  that  extract 
at  length,  that  all  may  see  the  precise  point 
at  which  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois 
has  separated  himself  from  his  Democratic 
brethren  and  the  Democratic  party.  I  have 
hinr  here  now,  in  his  speech  before  the  Senate 
the  other  day,  declaring  that  that  was  the 
bargain  ;  that  whenever  the  court  made  the 
decision  he  would  stand  by  it ;  that  he  had 
always  intended  to  stand  by  it ;  that  it  was 
binding  on  him  in  good  faith ;  and  that  the 
whole  power  of  the  Government  should,  with 
his  consent,  be  called  into  operation  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  out  the  decision.  I  shall 
proceed  presently  to  show  that  the  Senator 
from  Illinois,  not  once,  but  again  and  again, 
since  1857,  has  been  engaged,  in  conjunction 
with  gentlemen  of  the  Black  Republican 
party,  first  in  endeavoring  to  explain  away 
the  decision  that  has  been  made,  and  next 
that  he  has  made  the  broad  and  open  avowal 
in  the  face  of  the  country  that,  if  the  deci- 
sion is  made,  it  shall  not  go  into  effect. 
That  is  the  arraignment  of  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Illinois.  Let  him  not  go  back  to 
1840,  or  1844,  or  1848,  or  1852,  or  1854,  when 
he  had  the  party  with  him,  nor  even  to  1856 ; 
but  let  him  come  down  to  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  spring  of  1857,  and  let  him  follow  me 
while  I  pursue  his  devious  track  since  that 
day. 

Early  in  the  year  1857  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  was  pronounced  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  Unitecf  States.  If  my  re- 
collection serves  me,  the  decision  had  not 
been  printed  when  we  adjourned.  A  num- 
ber of  us,  I  think,  subscribed  together  to 
obtain  a  number  of  copies  from  the  public 
printer,  agreeing  that  he  should  print  such 
a  number  as  we  believed  the  Senate  would 
be  willing  to  have  printed  when  it  reassem- 
bled ;  and  if  the  Senate  declined  to  print  it 
when  it  assembled,  we  made  ourselves  re- 
sponsible to  .him  for  the  price.  It  was  de- 
sired that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  should  go  to  the  country.'  The  dis- 
senting opinions  of  the  two  judges,  who 
were  in  the  minority,  had  been  printed. 


The  opinion  of  the  court  was  still  unknown. 
The  result  of  its  opinion  was  pretty  well 
ascertained  ;  but  in  a  matter  of  that  magni- 
tude it  was  deemed  of  the  last  importance 
to  have  the  very  language  of  the  court,  and 
to  have  it  spread  broadcast  through  the 
land.  Now,  Mr.  President,  we  are  told 
that  this  decision  decides  nothing  of  what 
was  at  issue  at  the  time ;  nothing  of  that 
issue  which  the  honorable  Senator  from  Il- 
linois agreed  to  leave  to  the  courts.  I  do 
not  know  any  better  way  of  ascertaining 
what  a  court  decided  than  to  do  as  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Illinois  has  advised 
us  to  do — take  the  court's  own  statement  of 
what  it  decided.  In  reference  to  this  Dred 
Scott  decision,  it  will  be  observed  by  any 
gentleman  who  chooses  to  refer  to  the  nine- 
teenth volume  of  Howard's  Reports,  that 
every  judge  gave  his  opinion  seriatim;  be- 
cause there  were  numerous  questions  on 
which  all  did  not  choose  to  be  bound,  with- 
out giving  a  statement  of  their  particular 
views ;  but  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Taney  de- 
livered the  opinion  of  the  court.  The  rest 
were  mere  statements  of  particular  views. 
"  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Taney,"  is  the  expres- 
sion, "  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court ;" 
and  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Taney  is  said  to  have 
made  a  syllabus  of  the  points  which  he,  the 
organ  of  the  court,  considered  to  have  beeu 
decided  by  the  court. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  attempt  to  get 
rid  of  the  authority  of  this  decision  on  the 
ground  that  the  questions  were  not  before 
the  court,  and  that  they  were  obiter  dicta, 
allow  me  to  say  this  :  it  is  true  that  when  a 
precise  point  is  before  a  court,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court  upon  that  point  is  alone 
that  which  binds  the  parties  ;  but  no  lawyer 
will  contradict  the  assertion,  that  those 
principles  which  the  court  itself  lays  down 
as  being  the  basis  upon  which  it  arrives  at 
its  conclusions,  are  decisions  by  the  court ; 
they  are  not  obiter  dicta.  Obiter  dicta, 
merely  passing  sayings,  are  such  views 
thrown  out  by  a  judge  in  the  course  of  his 
reasoning  as  have  no  reference  to  the  points 
upon  which  he  is  deciding  the  case  ;  but 
whenever,  in  order  to  reach  a  result,  the 
court  proceeds  to  give  those  reasons  for 
that  result,  and  in  giving  those  reasons  for 
arriving  at  the  result,  it  lays  down  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  the  result  is  reached,  I 
say  those  principles  are  considered  as  de- 
cided by  the  court.  If  unnecessary  to  its 
decision,  they  have  less  weight;  but  if  the 
court  itself  declares  the  principles  that  it 
lays  down  to  be  necessary  to  its  decision, 
and  declares  that  it  does  decide  them,  then 
I  say  no  lawyer  can  fail,  when  that  case  is 
-brought  up  before  the  court,  to  say  the 
court  has  so  decided. 

I  do  not  choose  to  go  into  that  at  any 
length,  nor  even  to  read  the  syllabus  of  the 


15 


pressly  recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  from 
that  other  constitutional  provision,  that  no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  property  without  due  process 
of  law." 

Pretty  straightforward  propositions,  one 
would  suppose. 

"Hence,  they  reach  the  conclusion  that,  as  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  recog- 
nizes property  in  slaves,  and  prohibits  any  person 
from  being  deprived  of  property  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law,  to  pass  an  act  of  Congress  by  which 
a  man  who  owned  a  slave  on  one  side  of  a  line 
would  be  deprived  of  him  if  he  took  him  on  the 
other  side,  is  depriving  him  of  that  property  with- 
out due  process  of  law.  That  I  understand  to  be 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  I  understand, 
rilso,  that  Judge  DOUGLAS  adheres  most  firmly  to 
that  decision;  and  the  difficulty  is,  how  is  it  pos- 
sible for  any  power  jfco  exclude  slavery  from  the 
Territory  unless '  in  violation  of  that  decision  ? 
That  is  the  difficulty. 

"In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1856, 
Judge  TRUMBULL,  in  a  speech,  substantially,  if 
not  directly,  put  the  same  interrogatory  to  Judge 
DOUGLAS  as  to  whether  the  people  of  a  Territory 
had  the  lawful  power  to  exclude  slavery  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  constitution.  Judge  DOUGLAS 
then  answered  at  considerable  length,  and  his 
answer  will  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe 
under  the  date  of  June  9,  1856." 

I  have  not  that  answer,  but  I  have  his 
answer  of  the  2d  of  July,  1856,  which  the 
Senator  from  Georgia  read  yesterday,  in 
which  he  says : 

"My  answer  then  was,  and  now  is  " — 

Here  is  his  senatorial  answer  in  Congress 
here : 

"My  answer  then  was,  and  now  is,  that  if  the 
Constitution  carries  slavery  there,  let  it  go,  andm 
pmoer  on  earth  can  take  it  away  /  but  if  the  Con 
stitution  does  not  carry  it  there,  no  power  but  the 
people  can  carry  it  there." 


Not  just  what  he  said  in  Illinois. 
Lincoln  proceeds : 


Mr 


"  The  Judge  said  that  whether  the  people  could 
exclude  slavery  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  consti- 
tution or  not,  tea*  a  question  to  be  decided  by  the 
Supreme   Court.     He  put  that  proposition,  as  wil 
be  seen  by  the  Congressional  Globe,  in  a  variety 
of  forms^  all  running  to  the  same  thing  in  sub 
stance — that  it  was   a  question  for  the  Supreme 
Court.     I  maintain   that  when  he  says,  after  th 
Supreme  Court  have  decided  the  question,  thatth 
people  may  yet  exclude  slavery   by   any  mean 
whatever,  he  does  virtually  say  that  it  is  not  a 
question  for   the  Supreme   Court,     He  shifts   hi* 
ground.     I  appeal  to  you  whether  he  did  not  saj 
it  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme   Court.     Hni 
not  the    Supreme    Court   decided   that  question 
When  he  now  says  the  people  may  exclude  slavery 
does  he  iiot  make  it  a  question  for  the  people 
Does  he  not  virtually  shift  his  ground,  and  saj 
that  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  court,  but  for  the 
people?     This   is   a   very   simple    proposition — a 
very  plain  and  naked  one."         *         *         * 


;  Again  :  I  will  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  you 
were  elected  members  of  the  Legislature,  what 
would  be  the  first  thing  you  would  have  to  do  be- 
bre  entering  upon  your  duties  ?  Swear  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Suppose 
rou  believe,  as  Judge  Douglas  does,  that  the  Con- 
titution  of  the  United  States  guarantees  to  your 
neighbor  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  that  Territory 
— that  they  are  his  property — how  can  you  clear 
your  oaths,  unless  you  give  him  such  legislation 
as  is  necessary  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that  pro- 
perty? What  do  you  understand  by  supporting 
the  constitution  of  a  State  or  of  the  United  States? 
Is  it  not  to  give  such  constitutional  helps  to  the 
rights  established  by  that  Constitution  as  may  be 
practically  needed  ?  Can  you,  if  you  swear  to 
support  the  Constitution,  and  believe  that  the 
Constitution  establishes  a  right,  clear  your  oath 
without  giving  it  support?  Do  you  support  the 
Constitution  if,  knowing  or  believing  there  is  a 
right  established  under  it  which  needs  specific 
legislation,  you  withhold  that  legislation?  Do 
you  not  violate  and  disregard  your  oath  ?  I  can 
conceive  of  nothing  plainer  in  the  world.  There 
can  be  nothing  in  the  words  'support  the  Consti- 
tution/ if  you  may  run  counter  to  it  by  refusing 
support  to  any  right  established  under  the  Consti- 
tution. And  what  I  say  here  will  hold  with  still 
more  force  against  the  Judge's  doctrine  of  'un- 
friendly legislation.'  How  could  you,  having 
sworn  to  supporj  the  Constitution,  and  believing 
it  guaranteed  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Ter- 
ritories, assist  in  legislation  intended  to  defeat  that 
right?  That  would  be  violating  your  own  view 
of  the  Constitution.  Not  only  so,  but  if  you  were 
to  do  so,  how  long  would  it  take  the  courts  to  hold 
your  vote*  unconstitutional  and  void?  Not  a 
moment. 

"  Lastly,  I  would  ask,  is  not  Congress  itself 
under  obligation  to  give  legislative  support  to  any 
right  that  is  established  in  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution? I  repeat  the  question,  is  not  Congress 
itself  bound  to  give  legislative  support  to  any 
right  that  is  established  in  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution ?  A  member  of  Congress  swears  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and 
if  he  sees  a  right  established  by  that  Constitution 
which  needs  specific  legislative  protection,  can  he 
clear  his  oath  without  giving  that  protection  ? 
Let  me  ask  you  why  many  of  us  who  are  opposed 
to  slavery  upon  principle,  give  our  acquieacenco 
to  a  fugitive  slave  law?  Why  do  we  hold  our- 
selves under  obligation  to  pass  such  a  law,  and 
abide  it  when  it  is  passed?  Because  the  Constitu- 
tion makes  provision  that  the  owners  of  slaves 
shall  have  the  right  to  reclaim  them.  It  gives 
the  right  to  reclaim  slaves,  arid  that  is,  as  Judge 
DOUGLAS  says,  a  barren  right,  unless  there  is  legis- 
lation that  will  enforce  it." 

Now,  sir,  let  it  not  be  said  that  I  am 
reading  Republican  doctrines  here,  because 
these  very  passages  from  the  speeches  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  were  introduced  as  discoveries 
by  the  Senator  from  Illinois' — these  and  the 
other  passages  in  relation  to  the  confusion 
between  a  State  and  a  Territory.  When 
the  Attorney  General  had  replied  to  the 
magazine  article  of  the  Senator  from  Illi- 
nois, a  rejoinder  was  issued,  called  "the  re- 
joinder of  Judge  Douglas  to  Judge  Black," 
in  which  he  says,  speaking  of  the  magazine 
article : 


16 


"In  that  article,  without  assailing  any  one" — 
He  never  assails  any  one — 

"In  that  article,  without  assailing  any  one,  or 
impugning  any  man's  motives,  I  demonstrated 
beyond  the  possibility  of  cavil  or  dispute  by  any 
fair-minded  man,  that  if  the  proposition  were 
true,  as  contended  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  that  slavery 
exists  in  the  Territories  by  virtue  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  conclusion  is  inevitable  and  irresistible, 
that  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  for  its  protection ;  that  there  is 
and  can  be  no  exception  to  the  rule  that  a  right 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  must  be  protected 
by  law  in  all  eases  where  legislation  is  essential  to 
its  enjoyment;  t!nat  all  who  conscientiously  believe 
that  slavery  exists  in  the  Territories — " 

Senators,  listen  to  me  now.  .  The  Senator 
from  Illinois  stood  here  last  week,  hour  after 
hour,  and  asked  what  was  this  new  issue 
which  we  were  trying  to  force  on  the  party, 
and  whence  its  necessity.  Why  not  stand, 
said  he,  on  the  platform  of  1856?  Why 
not  take  that  Cincinnati  platform  which 
we  agreed  to  in  1856  ?  Who  is  it,  he  says, 
that  is  forcing  these  new  issues  on  the 
party?  I  have  tracked  him  through  Illi- 
nois. What  did  he  say  in  his  defence  of 
the  Harper's  Magazine  article  about  the  ne- 
cessity of  putting  this  very  resolution  in  the 
platform  ?  He  says  he  has  demonstrated — 

"That  all  who  conscientiously  believe  that 
slavery  exists  in  the  Territories  by  virtue  of  the 
Constitution  are  bound  by  their  consciences  and 
their  oaths  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution  to  sup- 
port a  congressional  slave  code  for  the  Territories." 

I  deny  that ;  but  I  want  to  show  his  view 
of  what  our  duty  is : 

"And  that  no  consideration  of  political  expedi- 
ency can  relieve  an  honest  man,  who  so  belieres, 
from  the  faithful  and  prompt  performance  of  this 
imperative  duty." 

That  is  Judge  DOUGLAS'S  view  of  our 
position;  and  yet,  hour  after  hour,  he  stands 
up  here  and  attacks  us  for  doing  that  which 
he  says  our  oaths  and  our  consciences  im- 
pose upon  us,  as  a  duty  so  imperative  that 
it  is  impossible  for  us  as  honest  men,  to 
avoid  doing  it.  He  says  further,  in  the 
same  "  rejoinder :" 

"I  also  demonstrated,  in  the  same  paper,  that 
the  constitution,  being  uniform  throughout  the 
United  States,  is  the  same  in  the  States  as  in  the 
Territories — is  the  same  in  Pennsylvania  as  in 
Kansas,-  and,  consequently,  if  slavery  exists  in 
Kansas  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  it  must  of  necessity  exist  in  Penn- 
sylvania by  virtue  of  the  same  instrument;  and 
if  it  be  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
force  the  people  of  the  Territory  to  sustain  the 
institution  of  slavery,  whether  they  want  it  or 
not,  merely  because  it  exists  there  by  virtue  of 
the  Constitution,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  Fede- 
ral Government  to  do  the  same  thing  in  all  the 
States  for  the  same  reason. 


"This  exposition  of  the  question  produced  con- 
steruation  and  dismay  in  the  camp  of  my  assail- 
ants." 


He  just  copied  the  arguments  from  Mr. 
Lincoln's  dispute  with  him,  put  them  into 
the  Harpers  Magazine  article,  and  tells  us 
that  this  exposition  of  his  of  the  constitu- 
tional rights  and  duties  of  the  States  of  this 
Union  produced  consternation  and  dismay 
amongst  his  assailants !  Why,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, what  is  there  in  this  argument  which 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois  has 
copied  from  those  Republicans  who  again 
and  again  have  attacked  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States — that 
under  the  doctrine  of  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision slavery  exists  as  well  in  the  States  as 
in  the  Territories ;  a  sophism  so  bald,  a 
proposition  so  destitute  of  a  shadow  of 
foundation,  that  it  never  was  used  by  any 
man  who  believed  it,  but  was  put  forth  to 
deceive  those  who  could  not  understand  the 
question. 

What  is  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States?  It  is  this, 
plainly  and  simply :  Congress  has  jurisdic- 
tion over  and  power  to  govern  the  Terri- 
tories; the  powers  of  Congress  under  the 
Constitution  are  limited ;  amongst  the  limi- 
tations is  a  prohibition  to  destroy  and  im- 
pair or  confiscate  the  property  of  citizens 
without  due  process  of  law.  Slaves  are 
property,  and  therefore  Congress  has  no 
power  to  confiscate  them,  to  destroy  them, 
or  to  impair  the  right  of  property  in  them, 
without  due  process  of  law.  That  is  what 
the  Supreme  Court  says.  What  has  that 
to  do  with  a  State?  Does  Congress  legis- 
late for  a  State  ?  Does  Congress  govern  a 
State  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  prohibiting  a 
State  from  doing  as  it  pleases  in  its  own 
legislation,  except  a  certain  clause  in  which 
the  prohibitions  are  plainly  stated,  and 
which  does  not  include  the  slavery  question 
at  all.  There  are  certain  prohibitions  on  the 
States  in  the  Constitution,  and  amongst  them 
are  emitting  bills  of  credit,  raising  armies  and 
navies,  levying  taxes  or  duties  on  imports, 
on  exports — all  these  are  prohibited  to  the 
States.  The  States  are  not  prohibited  from 
legislating  on  slavery  in  their  own  limits  ; 
but  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
hold  that  Congress  is  prohibited  by  the 
Constitution  from  doing  so  in  the.  Territo- 
ries, and  yet  the  Senator  from  Illinois  re- 
peats this  absurd  position,  that  because 
Congress  cannot  destroy  property  in  slaves 
in  a  Territory  therefore  State  constitutions 
cannot  destroy  it  m  the  States  ! 

It  was,  Mr.  President,  well  known  to  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  when  he  penned  this 
article,  that  there  was  nothing  in  it  what- 
ever. He  was  driven  to  it.  Every  time  he 


17 


liscusses  the  question,  if  he  holds  to  the 
principles  he  has  promulgated  in  the  Senate, 
and  now  adheres  to  before  the  nation,  he 
will  be  driven,  step  by  step,  back  and  back, 
to  the  Black  Republican  camp.  Let  him 
beware  of  the  first  step  outside  of  the  in- 
trenchments  of  the  Constitution.  Let  him 
beware  .'lest  he  gets  so  far  that  return  be- 
comes impossible.  He  has  already  got  to 
using  their  arguments,  to  adopting  their 
principles,  and  after  vaunting  here  that  he 
is  the  embodiment  of  the  Democratic  party, 
and  'offering  indulgence  and  quarter  to  all 
Democratic  Senators  ahd  all  Democratic 
States  that  disagree  with  him,  he  joins  in 
the  cry  that  Democratic  sentiments,  truly 
expounded,  lead  to  disunion. 

Sir,  I  have  trespassed  on  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  rather  longer  than  I  intended.  1 
shall  be  as  brief  as  possible  for  the  remain- 
der of  the  time  I  shall  occupy.  The  Sena- 
tor from  Illinois,  the  other  day,  went  fur- 
ther. He  has  not  only  evaded,  avoided  and 
circumvented  the  South  by  the  Nebraska 
bill,  if,  indeed,  it  be  susceptible  of  the  con- 
struction he  gives  it,  and  confers  on  the 
people  of  the  Territories  the  right  he  now 
alleges,  but,  with  all  his  promises,  the  cloven 
foot  again  sticks  out.  He  warns  us— yes 
Senators,  he  warns  us — that  if  the  Tennes- 
see resolution  is  adopted  at  Baltimore,  he 
will  explain  away  that,  too.  Nothing  can 
bind  him,  according  to  his  present  state- 
ments. Let  me  read  this  Tennessee  resolu 
tion,  and  1  will  ask  every  man  within  the 
sound  of  my  voice  whether  it  does  not  seem 
to  be  as  plain  and  clear  as  the  English  Ian 
guage  can  make  it  ?  Pass  it,  and  he  tells 
you  it  will  not  bind  him.  He  says  it  has  a 
double  construction  and  a  double  meaning 
He  has  prepared  everybody  for  a  double 
meaning  to  it.  He  asked  the  Senator  from 
Ohio  to  read  it ;  'and  here  it  is  : 

"  Mr.  Pugh  read,  as  follow  : 

"Resolved,  That  all  citizens  of  the  United  State 
have  an  equal  right  to  settle  with  their  property 
in  the  Territories,  and  that  under  the  decision  o" 
the  Supreme  Court,  which  we  recognize  as  a 
exposition  of  the  Constitution,  neither  their  right 
of  person  or  property  can  be  destroyed  or  impaire 
by  congressional  or  territorial  legislation." 

I  confess  that  I  read  it  over  and  over,  an 
could  not  see  a  loop  to  hang  a  doubt  on.  A 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  a 
equal  right  to  settle  with  their  property  i 
the  Territories,  and  no  territorial  legislatio 
can  impair  it.  That  is  the  Tennessee  reso 
lution.  What  is  the  warning  given  to  u 
by  the  Senator  from  Illinois  ?  Here  it  is  : 

"We  have  had  predictions  that  the  party  was  t 
bo  reunited  by  tho  adaption  of  that  resolution 
The  only  objection  I  have  to  it  is,  that  it  is  liabl 
to  two  constructions." . 


The  Cincinnati  platform  that  he  warns  us 
o  stick  to — that,  of  course,  is  not.  Oh, 
o  !  But  this  will  be  liable  to  two  construc- 
ons,  and  I  have  puzzled  my  brain  for  an 
our  to  get  at  that  other  construction.  I 
rill  read  what  the  Senator  said,  and  per- 
aps  other  Senators  may  be  more  fortunate 
ban  I  have  been.  I  think  I  have  got  a 
limpse.  He  says  it  is  liable  to  two  con- 
tractions— 

"And  certainly  and  inevitably  will  receive  two, 
irectly  the  opposite  to  each  other,  and  each  will 
e  maintained  with  equal  pertinacity." 

We  know  what  the  South  will  maintain 
under  that  resolution  ;  and  who  will  main- 
am   any  other  construction  ?     Surely,  tho 
Senator   from   Illinois  means  that  he  will, 
>ecause  he  knows  we  will  not.     We  can  see 
but  one  meaning,  and  no  man  imbued  with 
constitutional  principles  can  discover  but 
one,  and  that  is,  that  all  citizens — those  who 
own  slaves,  as  well  as  those  who  own  horses 
— have  a  right  to  go  with  their  property  into 
the  Territories — have  an  equal  right  to  go 
here  ;  and  that  their  property  shall  not  be 
mpaired.     But   the  Senator   from    Illinois 
says  there  is  another  construction  that  will 
maintained,  and  persistently  maintained. 
And  what  is  it  ?     He  says  : 

'The  resolution  contains,  in  my  opinion,  two 
;ruisrns  ;  and  fairly  considered,  no  man  can  ques- 
;ion  them." 

What  is  the  fair  consideration  he  gives 
it? 

"  Thoy  are,  first,  that  every  citizen" — 

Not  "  all  the  citizens."  The  resolution 
says  all  the  citizens.  He  says  every  citizen. 
But  I  will  show  you  why  he  says  so  : 

"  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  has  an  equal 
right  in  the  Territories;  that  whatever  right  the 
citizen  of  one  State  has  may  be  enjoyed  by  the  citi- 
zens of  all  the  States." 

See  how  he  is  changing  it  now ! 

"That  whatever  property  the  citizen  of  one 
State  may  carry  there,  the  citizens  of  all  the  States 
may  carry." 

And  then  they  will  go  on  with  the  old  Re- 
publican objection,  that  we  are  all  at  per- 
fect liberty  to  go  into  the  Territories  with- 
out our  property  ;  that  we  are  all  on  an 
equal  footing.  The  old  Republican  argu- 
ment that  was  brought  up  here  in  the  dis- 
cussions on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in 
1854,  the  Senator  from  Illinois  tenders  to  us 
now  for  the  canvass  of  I860.  He  will  tell 
us,  "  You  are  not  excluded  from  the  Terri- 
tory ;  a  northern  man  goes  with  his  horses, 
you  may  go  with  horses ;  a  northern  Dian 


18 


goes  with  a  cow,  you  may  go  with  a  cow ;  a 
uorthern  man  does  not  go  with  a  slave,  and 
you  shall  not  go  with  a  slave  ;  "  and  that  is 
the  equality  that  he  says  it  means.  The 
Senator  from  Illinois  is  kind  in  warning  us 
in  advance  this  time  how  this  proposition 
will  be  got  rid  of.  The  South  will  be  fools 
if  they  do  not  take  advantage  of  the  warn- 
ing, and  see  if  something  cannot  be  devised 
which  the  astute  and  practiced  ingenuity  of 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  cannot  get  around, 
if  the  English  language  can  hold  him.  Now 
he  says: 

"And  on  whatever  terms  the  citizens  of  one 
State  can  hold  it,  and  have  it  protected,  the  citi- 
»ens  of  all  States  can  hold  it  and  have  it  protected, 
without  deciding  what  the  right  is  which  still 
remains  for  decision.-' 

So  that  the  Tennessee  platform  will  leave 
us  just  where  we  are  now.  What  is  his  ob- 
jection to  it  ? 

"I  want  no  double  dealing,  or  double  construc- 
tion." 

That  is  his  objection.  He  wants  things 
clear,  plain,  and  straight ;  and  then  when 
we  ask  that  they  shall  be  put  down  clear, 
plain,  and  straight,  he  abuses  us  for  making 
new  tests  in  the  party  ;  talks  about  assaults 
on  him  ;  kept  the  Senate  occupied  for  eight 
mortal  hours,  whilst  he  was  attacking  every 
man  and  every  State  in  the  entire  Union 
that  would  not  support  his  pretensions  for 
the  Presidency. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  people  have  at 
last  come  to  this  point;  the  Democratic 
delegates  of  the  South  have  come  to  this 
point.  I  speak  not  of  the  delegates  in  either 
House  of  Congress.  It  is  the  fashion  to 
speak  of  congressional  dictation,  in  a  cer- 
tain class  of  public  journals  under  the  con- 
trol of  certain  public  men,  and  yet  one  would 
suppose  that  a  seat  in  Congress  affords  at 
least  some  prima  facie  probability  of  the 
possession  of  the  confidence  of  the  constit- 
uency, and  that  the  unanimous  concurrence 
of  opinion  of  the  chosen  representatives  of 
the  Democracy,  both  of  States  and  constit- 
uencies, is  some  prima  facie  proof  of  what 
Democratic  principles  are.  But  all  that  is 
nothing.  In  modern  slang,  this  is  a  Yancey 
and  caucus  platform,  and  we  are  congress- 
ional dictators.  I,  therefore,  leaving  out  of 
view  the  opinions  of  members  of  Congress 
in  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  United  Statos,  now  say  that  it  has 
been  demonstrated  by  the  delegates  of  the 
South,  sent  by  the  State  conventions  from 
primary  meetings,  that  the  time  has  come 
when  all  constitutional  rights,  guaranteed  to 
UB  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
— which  was  taken  by  the  Senator  from  Illi- 
nois and  his  coadjutors  as  the  common  arbi- 


ter of  our  dispute,— shall  be  acknowledged  ; 
that  all  that  we  demand  shall  be  put  down 
in  the  bond  ;  that  there  shall  be  no  longer  a 
doubt  in  relation  to  it. 

Mr.  President,  when  mere  private  rights 
of  property  are  concerned — when  the  ques- 
tion is,  who  owns  a  farm,  or  who  owns  a 
horse,  or  who  is  entitled  to  $100,— it  is  au 
old  aphorism  of  the  law';  misera  est  servitus, 
ubijus  aid  vagum  aut  incertum  est :  wretch- 
ed and  deplorable  is  the  slavery  where  the 
law  which  governs  a  man's  rig-lit  is  vague  or 
uncertain.  And  shall  we — we  who  repre- 
sent Democratic  States  and  Democratic 
constituencies — be  asked  why  it  is  that  we 
will  not  leave  these  rights,  on  which  they 
rest  for  their  property,  which  are  even  vital 
to  their  existence,  open  to  doubt  and  denial  ? 
Shall  we  be  asked  why  it  is  that  we  demand 
that  the  charter  of  these  rights  be  written 
clearly,  plainly,  beyond  the  possibility  of 
doubt  or  misconstruction  ?  Oh,  no,  says  the 
Senator  from  Illinois,  "  in  1856  we  were 
unanimous  upon  the  Cincinnati  platform  ;  I 
have  given  it  a  construction,  and  the  Charles- 
ton convention  has  backed  my  construction, 
and  I  am  the  Democratic  party ;"  and  it  is  his 
construction,  and  the  construction  adopted 
by  a  minority  at  Charleston,  that  he  presents 
to  us  here,  and  asks  us  by  what  right  we 
call  for  something 'plainer  or  clearer  as  the 
charter  of  our  constitutional  privileges  ? 
Miserable  and  deplorable  is  the  slavery 
where  the  law  governing  the  property  of  the 
individual  is  doubtful  or  uncertain.  Degrad- 
ing and  dishonoring  to  a  State  is  it,  when 
its  sovereignty  cannot  ask  for  an  expression 
or  acknowledgment  of  its  sovereign  rights 
in  an  assembly  of  equals.  The  people  of  the 
South  do  not  mean  to  be  put  off  this  time 
with  any  doubtful  or  vague  construction. 
The  Senator  from  Illinois  is  opposed  to 
double  meanings  and  double  constructions  ; 
he  dislikes  the  Tennessee  platform  on  that 
ground.  We  share  his  dislike ;  fas  est  ab 
hoste  doceri:  we  will  be  taught  by  him.  We 
will  ask  that  everything  in  our  platform  be 
put  down  plainly  and  clearly. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Illinois,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power, 
tells  us  that  the  Democratic  platform  has 
been  adopted,  and  backs  him.  He  next 
tells  us  that  it  is  glory  enough  for  him  to 
have  been  supported  by  a  majority  of  the 
delegates  of  the  Democratic  party  at  a  con- 
vention ;  and  then,  with  an  allusion  some- 
what transparent,  to  a  course  of  proceeding 
by  others  which  would  be  agreeable  to  him, 
he  says  that  when  others  got  a  majority  he 
sent  word  to  his  friends  to  vote  for  them. 
He  does  not  say  that  he  thinks  everybody 
ought  to  send  word  to  vote  for  him,  but  he 
leaves  it  to  us,  if  we  are  generous  or  lib- 
eral, to  draw  our  own  conclusions.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  I  know  what  happened  at 


19 


that  convention  only  from  the  public  records 
of  the  country,  and  the  report  of  its  dele- 
gates. It  is  reported  that,  as  his  highest 
Vote,  upon  one  or  two  ballots,  the  honora- 
ble Senator  from  Illinois  received  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty-two  and  a  half  votes,  and  I 
think  that  was  the  highest. 

Mr.  PUGH.  For  several  ballots— seven 
or  eight. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  How  did  he  get 
them  ?  Were  there  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
two  delegates  in  the  convention  of  whom  he 
was  the  choice  ? 

Mr.  PUGH.  Certainly;  they  expressed 
it  by  their  vote. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  Oh,  that  was  part 
of  the  arrangement  by  which  those  who 
were  not  candidates  for  the  Presidency  were 
caught,  but  the  truth  of  history  will  leak 
out  in  despite  of  those  little  arrangements. 
(Laughter.)  I  had  here  amongst  my  papers, 
I  think,  the  speech  of  a  delegate,  who  ex- 
plains this  majority. 

Mr.  PUGH.  State  the  substance  of  it. 
If  it  was  said  at  Charleston  I  shall  recol- 
lect it. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  Well,  sir,  I  will 
state  the  substance  of  it ;  I  cannot  find  the 
extract  I  had,  and  I  shall  have  to  affix  it  to 
my  speech.  Gentlemen  have  doubtless  seen 
it.  Scarcely  had  the  Charleston  convention 
met,  and  a  committee  been  appointed  on 
organization,  when  it  reported  an  organiza- 
tion of  presidents,  vice-presidents,  and  sec- 
retaries, and  sprung  this  resolution  on  the 
convention  instanter — the  convention  had 
previously  adopted  the  rules  of  the  previous 
Democratic  conventions — 

"  The  committee  further  recommend  "— 

The  subject  was  not  committed  to  them 
at  all— 

"The  committee  further  recommend  that  the 
rules  and  regulation!*  adopted  by  the  Democratic 
convention  of  1852  and  1856  be  adopted  by  this 
convention  for  its  government;"  with  this  addi- 
tional rule: 

"That  any  State  which  has  not  provided  or 
directed  by  its  State  convention  how  its  votes  may 
be  given,  the  convention  will  recognize  the  right 
of  each  delegate  to  cast  his  individual  vote." 

As  a  certain  gentleman  was  a  candidate 
for  the  Presidency — Heaven  preserve  the 
country  from  candidates  for  the  Presidency ! 
— wherever  the  gentleman's  friends  were  in 
the  majority,  they  had  taken  special  pains, 
by  pre-organization,  to  get  a  resolution 
passed  at  the  State  conventions  instructing 
the  delegates  to  vote  as  a  unit,  and  thus 
they  fastened  down  every  man  in  a  minority 
in  the  United  States,  and  in  spite  of  him- 
self got  his  vote  cast  for  the  Senator  from 
Illinois,  although  he  wa,s  opposed  to  him. 


But  the  conventions  in  other  States  leaving 
the  Democratic  delegates  to  the  instincts 
of  their  own  judgment ;  leaving  in  opera- 
tion the  time-honored  traditions  of  the  pap- 
tv  ;  not  tyinjr  up  their  delegations  by  in- 
structions' left  them  to  act  as  they  might 
think  proper  ;  and  when  they  got  to  Charles- 
ton, by  forcing  the  votes  of  all  the  minori- 
ties that  were  against  Mr.  DOUGLA.S,  and 
freeing  the  hands  of  all  the  minorities  that 
were  in  his  favor,  his  friends  had  cast  for 
him  all  the  minorities,  both  those  for  him 
and  those  against  him,  in  all  the  United 
States.  That  is  the  way  he  got  one  vote 
more  than  half  the  convention.  Now,  what 
I  was  looking  for  was  this  :  the  distinct 
statement  of  a  delegate  from  Massachu- 
setts, (Mr.  BUTLER,)  that  there  were  fifteen 
steady,  persistent  votes  against  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  from  the  State  of  New  York 
alone.  I  am  telling  you  what  IVIr.  Butler 
said. 

Mr.  PUGH.  I  read  his  speech  last 
night ;  I  think  he  said  twelve. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  I  read  it  this  morn- 
ing ,  it  said  fifteen.  It  may  have  changed 
since  last  night. 

Mr.  *PUGH.  Very  well ;  fifteen  dele- 
gates. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  He  says  there  were 
fifteen  delegates  from  New  York  alone  who 
were  steady,  persistent  opponents  of  Mr. 
DOUGLAS  ;  yet  those  votes  were  cast  for  him. 
There  was  a  tninotity  in  Indiana,  but  those 
votes  were  cast  for  him.  There  were  minori- 
ties in  other  States,  which  I  added  up;  and 
instead  of  having  a  majority  of  the  delegates 
of  the  Democratic  party  throughout  the 
United  States  in  his  favor,  Mr.  DOUGLAS  was 
in  a  lean  minority  of  but  one-third  of  the 
delegates,  and  tha.t  one-third  exclusively 
from  Republican  States.  The  whole  Demo- 
cratic party  of  the  United  States,  as  its  Dem- 
ocratic electoral  votes  will  testify,  was  op- 
posed to  him  unanimously.  Mr.  Butler  says 
so.  My  friend  from  Minnesota,  (Mr.  RICK,) 
has  just  handed  me  the  extract  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  this  morning ;  and  I  will  read 
not  the  whole  of  it,  but  portions  of  it.  and  if 
I  am  wrong  in  my  memory  as  to  fifteen,  I 
will  give  up. 

Mr.  PUGH.  I  read  it  in  the  Herald 
last  night. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  Mr.  Butler,  in  giv- 
ing an  account  to  his  constituents  at  a 
meeting  called  to  censure  him,  but  which 
approved  and  endorsed  him  after  he  was 
through,  said  : 

"  In  New  York  there  were  fifteen  votes  opposed 
to  Judge  DOUGLAS  from  first  to  last,  yet  her  thirty- 
five  votes  wore  cast  for  him  on  every  ballot;  in 
Ohio,  six  votes." 

Mr.  PUGH.    Not  one. 


20 


Mr.  BENJAMIN— 

"In  Indiana,  five  vote?  :  in  Minnesota,  two  votes 
opposed  to  him,  yet  by  that  rule  east  for  him,  so 
that  the  majority  was  more  apparent  than  real." 

I  leave  out  the  six  votes  from  Ohio.  The 
Senator  from  Ohio,  who  was  a  delegate 
himself,  must  certainly  know  better  than 
the  delegate  from  Massachusetts,  and  I 
abandon  the  point  to  his  superior  know- 
ledge ;  but  here,  without  counting  any  more, 
fifteen  in  New  York,  five  in  Indiana,  two  in 
Minnesota,  make  twenty-two.  Take  twen- 
ty-two from  one  hundred  and  fifty-two,  and 
there  remain  one  hundred  and  thirty,  with- 
out counting  a  solitary  vote  against  him 
from  the  State  of  Ohio.  But,  sir,  I  will 
not  enter  into  these  minutiae,  which  ought 
not  to  be  entered  into  in  the  Senate,  and 
which  I  certainly  never  would  have  thought 
of  speaking  of,,  but  for  the  constant  vaunt 
of  the  Senator  from  Illinois  that  the  major- 
ity was  his,  and  he  was  entitled  to  a  nomi- 
nation ;  that  the  party  had  backed  his  prin- 
ciples, and  that  we  were  all  rebels  against 
his  high  majesty.  I  should  not  have  in- 
quired into  this  matter  but  for  that.  And 
now  what  does  this  this  delegate  say  as  the 
sum  total  of  what  occurred  ?  He  says  : 

"  Now,  with  the  South  opposed  to  Judge  DOUG- 
LAS, even  to  a  disruption  of  the  party  j  with  every 
Democratic  free  State  voting  against  him;  with 
two-thirds  of  the  delegation  of  the  great  State  of 
Pennsylvania  firmly  against  him,  one-half  nearly 
of  New  York  hostile.  New  Jersey  divided,  and  the 
only  State  in  New  England  where  the  Democracy 
can  have  much  hope  (Connecticut)  nearly  equally 
balanced,  what  was  it  the  part  of  wisdom  for  your 
delegate  to  do  ?" 

That  is  the  question  Mr.  Butler  presents 
to  his  constituency.  What  does  he  say? 

"I  found  also  that  Judge  DOUGLAS  was  in  op- 
position to  almost  the  entire  Democratic  majority 
of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  No  matter 
who  is  right  and  who  is  wrong,  it  is  not  a  plensant 
position  for  a  candidate  of  the  Democratic  party." 

This  is  Mr  Butler's  language  : 

"I  found  him  opposed  by  a  very  large  majority 
of  the  Democratic  members  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives." 

We  have  watched  him  here  : 

"  It  is  doubtless  all  wrong  that  this  should  be 
eo,  yet  ?o  it  is.  I  have  heard  that  the  sweetest 
wine  makes  the  sourest  vinegar,  but  I  never  heard 
of  vinegw  sour  enough  to  make  sweet  wine.  Cold 
apathy  and  violent  opposition  are  not  the  prolific 
parent  of  votes.  I  found,  worse  than  nil  for  a 
Democratic  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  that  the 
Clerk  of  the  Republican  House  of  Representatives 
was  openly  quoted  as  saying  that  the  influential 
paper  controlled  by  him  would  either  support 
DOUGLAS  or  SEWARD,  thug  making  himself,  appa- 


rently, an  unpleasant  connecting  link   between 
them. 

"With  these  facts  before  me,  and  impressing 
upon  me  the/ conviction  that  the  nomination  of 
Judge  DOUGLAS  could  not  be  made  with  any  hope 
of  safety  to  the  Democratic  party,  what  was  I  to 
do  ?  I  will  tell  you  what  I  did  do,  and  I  am  afraid 
it  is  not  what  I  ought  to  have  done.  Yielding  to 
your  preference,  I  voted  seven  times  for  Judge 
DOUGLAS,  although  my  judgment  told  my  that 
my  votes  were  worse  than  useless,  as  they  gave 
him  an  appearance  of  strength  in  the  convention 
which  I  felt  he  had  not,  in  fact,  in  the  Democratic 
party." 

That  is  the  gentleman  who  stands  up 
here,  and  as  the  embodiment  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party  challenges  the  entire  body  of 
his  Democratic  fellow-Senators. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  all  that  I  have 'said 
has  been  said  somewhat  in  indignation.  It 
was  not  in  human  nature  not  to  feel  indig- 
nation at  the  charges  so  profusely  scattered 
against  me  and  my  friends,  and  my  State  ; 
but  still,  sir,  after  all,  "  more  in  sorrow  than 
in  anger."  Up  to  the  years  1857  and  1858, 
no  man  in  this  nation  had  a  higher  or  more 
exalted  opinion  of  the  character,  the  ser- 
vices, and  the  political  integrity  of  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  than  I  had.  I  can 
appeal  to  those  who  may  have  heard  me  in 
the  last  presidential  canvass,  in  my  State, 
where,  for  months  together,  day  and  night, 
I  was  traveling  in  support  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  helping,  as  far  as  my  hum- 
ble abilities  would  admit,  to  break  down  the 
Know-Nothing  party,  which  had  then  a  de- 
cided majority  of  the  voters  of  our  State 
inscribed  in  its  lodges.  We  succeeded  in 
that  contest.  The  canvass  was  a  success- 
ful one  ;  and  it  did  so  happen  that,  in  the 
course  of  that  canvass,  I  had  again  and 
again  to  appeal  to  my  Democratic  fellow- 
citizens  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  to  stand 
by  the  gallant  Democracy  of  the  North 
who  stood  by  us,  to  frown  down  this  new 
organization,  whose  only  effect  could  be  to 
injure  the  Democratic  candidate  and  his 
success ;  and  then,  in  speaking  of  that 
bright  galaxy  of  Democratic  talent,  Demo- 
cratic integrity,  and  Democratic  statesman- 
ship, that  I  now  see  gathered  and  clustered 
around  me,  the  central  figure  was  the  hon- 
ored portrait  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois. 

Sir,  it  has  been  with  reluctance  and  sor- 
row that  I  have  been  obliged  to  pluck  down 
my  idol  from  his  place  on  high,  and  refuse 
to  him  any  more  support  or  confidence  as  a 
member  of  the  party.  I  have  done  so,  I 
trust,  upon  no  light  or  unworthy  ground.  I 
have  not  done  so  alone.  The  causes  that 
have  operated  on  me  have  operated  on  the 
Democratic  party  of  the  United  States,  and 
have  operated  an  effect  which  the  whole 
future  life  of  the  Senator  will  be  utterly 
unable  to  obliterate.  It  is  impossible  that 
confidence  thus  lost  can  be  restored.  On 


21 


what  ground  has  that  confidence  been  for- 
feited, and  why  is  it  that  we  now  refuse  him 
out  support  and  fellowship  ?  I  have  stated 
our  reason  to-day.  I  have  appealed  to  the 
record.  I  have  not  followed  him  back  in 
the  false  issue  or  the  feigned  traverse  that 
he  makes  in  relation  to  matters  that  are  not 
now  in  contest  between  him  and  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  The  question  is  not  what  we 
all  said  or  believed  in  1840  or  185«.  How 
idle  was  it  to  search  ancient  precedents,  and 
accumulate  old  quotations  from  what  Sena- 
tors may  have  at  different  times  said  in  re- 
lation to  their  principles  and  views.  The 
precise  point,  the  direct  arraignment,  the 
plain  and  explicit  allegation  made  against 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  is  not  touched  by 
him  in  all  of  his  speech. 

We  accuse  him  for  this,  to  wit :  that 
having  bargained  with  us  upon  a  point  upon 
which  we  were  at  issue,  that  it  should  be 
considered  a  judicial  point ;  that  he  would 
abide  the  decision ;  that  he  would  act  under 
the  decision,  and  consider  it  a  doctrine  of 
the  party ;  that  having  said  that  to  us  here 
in  the  Senate,  he  went  home,  and  under  the 
stress  of  a  local  election,  his  knees  gave 
way ;  his  whole  person  trembled.  His  ad- 
versary stood  upon  principle  and  was  beaten  ; 
and  lo  !  he  is  the  candidate  of  a  mighty 
party  for  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  faltered. 
He  got  the  prize  for  which  he  faltered  ;  but' 
lo !  the  grand  prize  of  his  ambition  to-day 
slips  from  his  grasp  because  of  his  faltering 
in  his  former  contest,  and  his  success  in  the 
canvass  for  the  Senate,  purchased  for  an  ig- 
noble price,  has  cost  him  the  loss  of  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States. 

Here  were  two  men,  struggling  before  the 
people  of  a  State  on  two  great  sides  of  a 
political  controversy  that  was  dividing  the 
Union,  each  for  empire  at  home.  One  stood 
on  principle — was  defeated.  To-day,  where 
stands  he  ?  The  other  faltered — received 
the  prize;  but,  to-day,  where  stands  he? 
Not  at  the  head  of  the  Democratic  party  of 
these  United  States.  He  is  a  fallen  star. 
We  have  separated  from  him.  He  is  right 
in  saying  we  have  separated  from  him.  We 


have  separated  from  him.  not  because  he 
held  principles  in  1856  different  from  ours. 
We  have  separated  from  him,  not  because 
we  are  intolerant  of  opposition  from  any- 
body, for  the  Senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  PUGH) 
is  an  honored  member  of  our  organization. 
We  separated  from  him  because  he  has  de- 
nied the  bargain  that  he  made  when  he 
went  home  ;  because,  after  telling  as  here  in 
the  Senate  that  he  was  willing  that  this 
whole  matter  should  be  decided  by  the  Su- 
preme Court,  in  the  face  of  his  people,  he 
told  them  that  he  had  got  us  by  the  bill ; 
and  that,  whether  the  decision  was  for  us  or 
against  us,  the  practical  effect  was  to  be 
against  us  ;  and  because  he  shows  us  now 
again  that  he  is  ready  to  make  use  of  Black 
republican  arguments  used  against  himself 
at  home,  and  to  put  them  forth  against  the 
Democratic  party  in  speeches  here  in  the 
Senate. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  this  will  be  repre- 
sented as  an  attack  on  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor from  Illinois  ;  but  I  finish  my  speech,  as 
he  did  his,  by  saying  "  the  Senate  will  bear 
me  witness  that  I  have  not  spoken,  on  this 
subject  until  attacked  ;  all  I  have  said  is  in 
self-defence.  I  attack  no  man,  and  the 
world  shall  know  if  ever  I  speak  again,  it 
shall  be  in  self-defence."  (Laughter.)  Mr. 
President,  the  best  defence  is  to  carry  the 
war  into  the  enemy's  country.  I  belong  to 
no  school  of  politicians  that  stand  on  the 
defensive.  If  attacked,  I  strike  back,  and 
ever  shall.  If  the  Senator  from  Illinois 
wants  the  world  to  know  that  he  spoke  only 
in  self-defence,  let  the  same  measure  of  jus- 
tice be  meted  out  to  me,  and  in  answer  to 
any  one  who  can,  by  possibility,  consider 
what  I  have  said  as  an  attack,  I  reply 
"self-defence."  (Laughter.)  I  wish  my 
speech  qualified  just  like  that  of  the  hono- 
rable Senator  from  Illinois.  If  his  is  an 
attack,  mine  is;  if  his  is  "self-defence" 
against  some  unknown  person,  mine  also  is 
"self-defence"  against  somebody  that  has 
attacked  me  and  my  State,  whose  name  I 
do  not  know.  (Laughter.)  That  is  just 
my  position,  I  state  it  plainly ;  I  am  sorry 
the  Senator  is  not  here  to  hear  it  stated.1 


